How America defeated Hitler

[kobayashi]

This is what the site below had to say about the US in early WWII

http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html

In one of his famous speeches Churchill asked America 'Give us the tools and we will finish the job'. But America wouldn't 'give' anything without payment. After two years of war, Roosevelt had drained Britain dry, stripping her of all her assets in the USA, including real estate and property. The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States. To make sure that Roosevelt got his money, he dispatched the American cruiser, 'Louisville' to the South African naval base of Simonstown to pick up forty two million Pounds worth of British gold, to help pay for American guns and ammunition!.Not content with stripping Britain of her gold and assets, Roosevelt now proceeded to 'strip the flesh off the bone'. In return for 50 old destroyers, he demanded that Britain transfer all her scientific and technological secrets to the USA. (American science had been lagging years behind the British at this stage). Also, he demanded leases on the islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda for the setting up of American military and naval bases in case Britain should fall.

 

[DingBat]

And your point is?

/bruce

 

[kobayashi]

I don't have one.

Just interested in what people think about this.

 

[SunTzu]

This is common knowledge Kob, everyone knew we were going to get involved in the war it was just the question of when.

 

[DingBat]

Well, you could equally say that the lack of moral courage in British leaders at the end of WW1, combined with a naive peace movement, combined with the foolish decision to allow the military to stagnate, combined with a refusal to see the writing on the wall all cost the British dearly.

In other words, they, via an abusive treaty sowed the seeds of the next war. They then followed this up with a dreamworld view of the future and allowed their military to decay to the point of feebleness. Finally, they refused to recognize the resurgence of Germany and then refused to do anything about it while it was still in their power to do so.

The British dodged a lot of bills in the 20's and 30's and they all came home to roost during the war. You can postpone payment, but not indefinitely.

Not saying this is my particular viewpoint, but it's just as valid as the one you originally posted.

/bruce

 

[PinkyGen]

Well, that was because we used the cash-and-carry policy passed into law by the isolationist Congress. They had to pay us up front. And to be sure, we made a pretty penny off it. While they gave us technology, we too gave them technology, such as the A-bomb.

And of course, Roosevelt was the one who started Lend-Lease, where we gave away tons of military equipment for free, under the guise of a loan. It was one of the most deceitful arguments ever in American history, the idea that they could ever pay us back.
And of course, after the war, there was the Marshall Plan.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
While they gave us technology, we too gave them technology, such as the A-bomb.

No you didn't. Despite the British providing much of the expertise and raw materials used in the Manhatten Project, the US refused to give Britain plans to nuclear weapons, and as a result Britain had to develop their own in the 1950's

And of course, Roosevelt was the one who started Lend-Lease, where we gave away tons of military equipment for free, under the guise of a loan. It was one of the most deceitful arguments ever in American history, the idea that they could ever pay us back.

I don't think that anyone at the time took the argument that Britain would pay back the cost of lend lease seriously. It was simply a dodge to get around the provisions of the neutrality laws.

 

[andycapp]

Self interest! The idea that nations (now and in the past)are motivated by altruism is a hoary old chestnut that's worth zip!

Self interest has and will continue to be the motivating factor in international affairs - failure to understand this basic concept will seriously distort a persons perception of history.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Personnally I wouldn't have gone to war with Hitler over Poland...I would have before the loss of the Sudetenland, but after that the odds weren't worth betting on...with so much at stake Britain leaders were fools to go to war when Hitler's belligerance was ultimately not directed at us.

If self interest had properly governed the British Government then Britain would not have felt tied to her treaties with the worthless Polish Dictatorship...

The problem was that the British Government had faith in the French Army...it was the largest in the world, but it sucked garlic sausage as per usual

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

The problem was that the British Government had faith in the French Army...it was the largest in the world, but it sucked garlic sausage as per usual

At least we don't drink warm beer and eat meat with chantilly cream.

 

[knowltok]

KOC, there is a poem about the holocaust that covers this point nicely. The gist is, first they came for the jews, and I didn't say anything. Then they came for the gypsies, and I said nothing. Then the gays, and the infirm, and still I said nothing. Then they came for me and there wasn't anyone left to say anything for me.

The point is, while the British and French should have put their foot down in '36 when Hitler moved into the Rhineland, and if not then, when he demanded the Sudatenland. However it is good they stood up at Poland, because it was rather obvious that Hitler wasn't going to be satisfied.

Once again Mr. Capp has hit the nail on the head. To the original post about the US not giving away anything, keep in mind that at that point Americans regarded WWII as just another pointless European conflict like the last 100 or so they had had. There was very strong sentiment for staying out of the war. The concept that Hitler was a new kind of menace hadn't been realized yet. Given that perception, why should the US just give away supplies and armaments?

WWII is the harshest example yet of the concept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (a gram of prevention is worth 16 grams of cure) A lesson that seems lost on much of the world these days.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

How America defeated Hitler?


The most obvious answer is:

Fight 'til the last Russian!!! I am dead serious. The war ended when Russia was attacked. D-Day didn't even need to happen... Except for that annoying Soviet Europe idea...


Great topic Kobayashi!!!

I didn't know ALL of what you had posted above (with the British possessions and such) but I knew that Roosevelt had hedged his bets carefully, and ensured American Dominance in the Western Hemisphere to boot.

 

[Blackadder]

Originally posted by jacques


At least we don't drink warm beer and eat meat with chantilly cream.

In my opinion, both the French and English have weird food tastes, snails in garlic sauce and fried Marsbars, honestly......(Now where are is my porridge and haggis?..)

As for your thread, kobayashi, perhaps I can add to the free British handouts......

The information for one of the Soviets more powerful flyers (was it the migs?) came straight from a British car company! Another agreement for better terms from the British government (like the others, nothing was achieved except stronger Soviet planes, used during the Korean war)

 

[knowltok]

>>The most obvious answer is:

Fight 'til the last Russian!!! I am dead serious. The war ended when Russia was attacked. D-Day didn't even need to happen... Except for that annoying Soviet Europe idea...<<


While I won't disagree with you about Russia being able to win without D-Day, I would remind you that the Soviets got a lot of help in the form of American supplies and arms. Also don't forget that the Americans and British gave the Soviets the gift of air superiority, and the constant bombing certainly didn't help the german war effort. Then factor in the numerous divisions used in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and all the other places the Americans and British might have invaded, and the Soviets got more help than they ever wanted to give credit for.

Perhaps the soviets could have won the war all by themselves with no help of any kind from the US, but I personally doubt it. Each of the Big Three played their part and it is possible that without any one of the three Hitler might have won.

I believe that it was Stalin who said that America provided the money, Britain the time, and Russia the blood. Of course he meant it as a slight on the other two, but I contend that the war would not have been won without all three.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I think that you have a very valid point about the American and British help... But Air Superiority was not as important on the Eastern Front as on the West...

Plus, the bombing really didn't affect the German industry like it was intended... But that is more of a product of mobilization than rebuilding of bombed factories.

 

[PinkyGen]

Air Power was important on the Soviet Front. If the Axis had managed to maintain air superiority, they could have prevented, or at least seen Soviet armies from massing in one local area before they attacked the Axis. (Very useful strategy on the part of the Soviets, best use of their actually limited numbers).

The axis actually lost air superiority, for two reasons. The first was the obvious comeback of the Red Air Force, with all their fighter aircraft, plus that wonderful tankbusting IL-2. Lend-Lease helped here.
Also, the bombing campaign drew large numbers of planes back to defend the skies of the Reich (where they got massacred when the P-51's started to arrive. Having the escorts shoot down the Luffwaffle was just as important as bombing the industry).
Yes, D-day was not necessary, but Europe would be Red then.

As for the original statement. Yes, the USA followed its interests, and realized our interests were keeping Britain afloat. I think we paid out far more in Lend-Lease, actual war committment, and Marshall Plan, than Britain paid to us.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by Blackadder

In my opinion, both the French and English have weird food tastes, snails in garlic sauce and fried Marsbars

fried marsbars?
What the hell is that?
You mean fried like french fries or something?

Wow that's interesting... never heard of that. But about garlics, all I have to say is that every animal on earth can be eaten, so why not snails. And beside, you don't have to eat them with garlic sauce, there are many ways to cook them.

 

[knowltok]

Admittedly the bombing didn't have the effect that Spaatz and Harris wanted, but then again they thought it would win the war on its own. You might even be able to make a case that the resources would have been better spent elsewhere (I disagree). However I do feel that the bombing campaigns had a significant impact on the war. German industry decentralized, spread out, and went into the homes to avoid bombing. That's great for the Germans as it kept their industry going, but large factories would have been more efficient.

 

[tetley]

My understanding is that Germany ran out of PILOTS before they ran out of planes. So although Germany couldn't just let Allied B-17's and Lancasters bomb their factories unabated, in the end it was the air-to-air attrition that achieved air superiority for the Allies--not the bombing.

The end result is the same, though: the western Allies did give the Soviets air superiority, and it was really important. Take the west out, and the Germans raze hell with their Stukas all over the Eastern Front. Kursk probably would have come out quite differently.

 

[Blackadder]

Originally posted by jacques



fried marsbars?
What the hell is that?
You mean fried like french fries or something?

Its true. Seems you batter the marsbar or something. But IF you think that is weird, some Chinese restaurants serve 'fried ice-cream', in which they make a batter outside and then put the ice-cream in it and serve. Unfortunatly I think I may have to retract my comment, as I have just been told fried marsbars are popular in Scotland! As for the garlic, it was the best I could think off, considering there is some French food I like (unless a pain au chocolat is just a false name...)

Fried must equal battered.......